Video.Detailed test of Federal Guard Dog, 9MM, 105 gr, EFMJ.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA7f69skz9g

The above link is a 7 minute, 44 second long detailed test of Federal Premium Guard Dog,
9MM, 105 grain, EFMJ (Expanding Full Metal Jacket) ammo.

It appears that Federal decreased the grains from the usual 124/147 grain 9MM's in order to
appeal to those shooters worried about over-penetration.

The tester's opinion is that this round appears to under-penetrate intended threats.

YMMV.

SIA

[CEOofEVIL]

TNoutdoors9 does the best ballistics testing on Youtube (I'm sorry - I don't trust the whole wet phone book or jugs of water 'testing') IMHO. His videos have certainly helped me choose the proper carry ammo, and helped put (laymans terms) external ballistics in perspective for me. His tests may not be always representative of one particular caliber, defensive load, etc, but they certainly help send folks in the right direction!

As for the Guard Dog load, I was able to determine that it wasn't for me, though I can see how it may fit the needs of some folks.

[MoJo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA7f69skz9g

The above link is a 7 minute, 44 second long detailed test of Federal Premium Guard Dog,
9MM, 105 grain, EFMJ (Expanding Full Metal Jacket) ammo.

It appears that Federal decreased the grains from the usual 124/147 grain 9MM's in order to
appeal to those shooters worried about over-penetration.

The tester's opinion is that this round appears to under-penetrate intended threats.

YMMV.

SIA

One comment, people aren't made of gelatin.

Who wants to be shot with this poor peforming round? I would rather see real world data gathered from actual shootings. While 9" of penetration isn't what the FBI is looking for in their ammo tests there are a number of tried and proven rounds that don't make the FBI specs that I would carry at any time.

Ammo tests on the internet are for entertainment.

[CEOofEVIL]

Mojo,

With Respect, I see what you are saying, but I don't agree on discounting ballistics gelatin tests as for entertainment purposes (Online by hobbyists or done by professional agencies such as the IWBA, etc.).

As you mention, the only way to see how a specific defensive load behaves when it strikes a human being is to gather that data directly from a shooting incident. Back in the early 1900's the US War Department commissioned tests to determine what wounding characteristics the Military would best be served by in a pistol caliber (which landed us with the .45, consequently). They shot at cadavers, and later live animals to determine the wounding effects of various calibers and rounds. A lot of that early testing was extremely subjective, and a great deal of it wasn't based on science or medical knowledge at all. The Soviets did the same thing when testing the x39 round when it was being developed. In 1962 when testing the 5.56, the US Govt used live goats, and amputated limbs to conduct similar tests. I digress though...

Terminal Ballistics (I incorrectly stated External Ballistics in my previous post, oops) is definitely still one of those sciences where things can get kind of iffy, but it has seen some significant improvements in testing protocol since those early days (ala IWBA Specs for instance). While we don't have an exact synthetic medium that matches that of the human body to work with, today's specs are about as good it gets aside from harvesting that real world data. At some point, someone in harms way had to use a cartridge of yet undetermined performance and reliability to gain the real world information that would lead us to tried and proven rounds. Of course the FBI's specs aren't the end all be all of requirements for simply causing enough damage to stop or to kill a threat, but I think they are a rather agreeable starting point. Through continuing to develop the field of Terminal and Wound Ballistics we can ensure that we are using the best performing round for the application. IE: not using older rounds, which while proven and reliable, may provide poorer performance characteristics compared to that of perhaps a more modernly engineering load. While load y may have performed excellently at stopping threats quickly for dozens of years, load z (no, not those Hornady Zombie loads ) may perform that same job more reliably and/or efficiently because it's design was based off of the data harvested from the real world encounters of load y, and for a initial testing, Ballistics media is where it starts. Of course no LE Agency or Military wants to try an experimental cartridge when life or death counts - nor should they be expected to - so if it can provide consistent test results with some sort of ballistic medium, it's much more possible that load will make it into use, and someday gain it's own tried and true track record.

Of course, a Youtuber like TNoutdoors9 who performs these tests as part of his hobby (and thus does not have any background in ballistics of any kind, according to himself), doesn't equal absolute scientific or repeatable real world fact. It's simply a jumping off point, a catalyst really, for folks that are curious about how a particular load performs. Since there are no shortage of self defense ammunition loads out there that claim to do their job better than the next, it's hard for the average joe to gain a concept of how each one may (or not) perform. I really think that's all TN is about - trying to help folks gain a better understanding, not unequivocally prove how deadly and effective a particular round is. I just saw another video of a gent that pumped birdshot in a slab of meat, with what I would interpret as similar intentions. The same thing with the folks who do the milk jugs full of water, phone book, wet pack, etc tests. I can't speak for other folks, but I simply feel more comfortable ascertaining the possible viability of a round if it is tested in something approaching a more scientific method.

Like you, I feel the only way to really know how a round is going to behave is when it's actually put into use. Perhaps I over complicate the issue of carry ammo in my head, but I'm constantly looking for new ways to learn about it, much like I do with everything else in the Firearms world. We never quite stop learning!

Just my 2 cents.

[MoJo]

Mojo,

With Respect, I see what you are saying, but I don't agree on discounting ballistics gelatin tests as for entertainment purposes (Online by hobbyists or done by professional agencies such as the IWBA, etc.).

As you mention, the only way to see how a specific defensive load behaves when it strikes a human being is to gather that data directly from a shooting incident. Back in the early 1900's the US War Department commissioned tests to determine what wounding characteristics the Military would best be served by in a pistol caliber (which landed us with the .45, consequently). They shot at cadavers, and later live animals to determine the wounding effects of various calibers and rounds. A lot of that early testing was extremely subjective, and a great deal of it wasn't based on science or medical knowledge at all. The Soviets did the same thing when testing the x39 round when it was being developed. In 1962 when testing the 5.56, the US Govt used live goats, and amputated limbs to conduct similar tests. I digress though...

Terminal Ballistics (I incorrectly stated External Ballistics in my previous post, oops) is definitely still one of those sciences where things can get kind of iffy, but it has seen some significant improvements in testing protocol since those early days (ala IWBA Specs for instance). While we don't have an exact synthetic medium that matches that of the human body to work with, today's specs are about as good it gets aside from harvesting that real world data. At some point, someone in harms way had to use a cartridge of yet undetermined performance and reliability to gain the real world information that would lead us to tried and proven rounds. Of course the FBI's specs aren't the end all be all of requirements for simply causing enough damage to stop or to kill a threat, but I think they are a rather agreeable starting point. Through continuing to develop the field of Terminal and Wound Ballistics we can ensure that we are using the best performing round for the application. IE: not using older rounds, which while proven and reliable, may provide poorer performance characteristics compared to that of perhaps a more modernly engineering load. While load y may have performed excellently at stopping threats quickly for dozens of years, load z (no, not those Hornady Zombie loads ) may perform that same job more reliably and/or efficiently because it's design was based off of the data harvested from the real world encounters of load y, and for a initial testing, Ballistics media is where it starts. Of course no LE Agency or Military wants to try an experimental cartridge when life or death counts - nor should they be expected to - so if it can provide consistent test results with some sort of ballistic medium, it's much more possible that load will make it into use, and someday gain it's own tried and true track record.

Of course, a Youtuber like TNoutdoors9 who performs these tests as part of his hobby (and thus does not have any background in ballistics of any kind, according to himself), doesn't equal absolute scientific or repeatable real world fact. It's simply a jumping off point, a catalyst really, for folks that are curious about how a particular load performs. Since there are no shortage of self defense ammunition loads out there that claim to do their job better than the next, it's hard for the average joe to gain a concept of how each one may (or not) perform. I really think that's all TN is about - trying to help folks gain a better understanding, not unequivocally prove how deadly and effective a particular round is. I just saw another video of a gent that pumped birdshot in a slab of meat, with what I would interpret as similar intentions. The same thing with the folks who do the milk jugs full of water, phone book, wet pack, etc tests. I can't speak for other folks, but I simply feel more comfortable ascertaining the possible viability of a round if it is tested in something approaching a more scientific method.

Like you, I feel the only way to really know how a round is going to behave is when it's actually put into use. Perhaps I over complicate the issue of carry ammo in my head, but I'm constantly looking for new ways to learn about it, much like I do with everything else in the Firearms world. We never quite stop learning!

Just my 2 cents.

Man, down here in da swamp land that's a buck seventy five's worth! Taking anyone who is a hobbyist word for performance is a bit sketchy.

The ammo manufacturers and places like the H. P. White laboratory have established test protocols that are repeatable. Just remember it is a test medium nothing else they try to replecate performance since we can't test on well you know.

Two loads that come to mind that don't pass the FBI test protocol and are almost death rays on the street are Federal and Remington's 125 gr .357 Magnum JHP load the other is Federal's 9mm 115 gr +P+ load (9BPLE). Both have taken down multitudes of BGs in the hands of police officers and armed citizens. Both are "old school technology" and neither will pass the 4 layers of denim protocol and they don't penetrate deeply enough. When I carry my .357 Magnum it's loaded with one of these substandard loads. If I can ever get a large enough stock of 9BPLE I'll carry it in my 9mm guns with no qualms.

Testing and experimentation is good it gives us something tangable to base our choice on besides the catchy name or the fancy packaging. Still, I say Internet ammo tests like TV torture tests are entertainment pure and simple. I'm still waiting for those two guys on TV to blow a gun up or something equally disastrous.

Shoot I done said more than my two cents worth.

[Transplant]

I've got some gripes with TnOutdoors tests (like the fact that it's a single round instead of a set of data), but I'll agree fully that his tests are both the best I've found on youtube, and are helpful.

Of course, ballistics gel isn't people. Neither are crash test dummies, but crash test ratings are still useful when you go buy a car if you're worried about safety because it's a constant measuring stick to compare against. Its not possible accurately collect consistent data about real world shootings with the same level of precision. People's body types vary too much, plus you've got all the environmental and situational variations.

I think there's good information in his results. It's also easy to find and follow. If one type of round did better when it was tested the exact same way as all the rest, it stands to reason that there's something behind it.

I dont care too much whether people give his tests credit or not, but it seems ignorant just to dismiss him categorically because he's not a professional.